The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Very well executed

ridiculous rating

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

A young soprano becomes the obsession of a disfigured musical genius who lives beneath the Paris Opéra House. He kidnaps the soprano and forces the owners of the play to keep her as the lead role of the play. The Phantom of the Opera is perhaps one of Schumacher's most underrated films it's packed with terrific sets, great perfomances by a very talented cast but also alot of singing that doesn't get painful as a whole. The storyline has this erotic, dark vibe to it that totally works on the big screen and it's definitely a movie that deserved better reviews. (A+)

The only way I ever heard of this film was when I was in middle school which was like 12 years ago! Man time has flown! Now what I have to say about this film is its very magical in its own way. I read the book back in middle school as I was in a charter school that had French class as a second language and we read the book than watched this version of the Opera. When I saw it for the first time I enjoyed it and fell in love it and soon later I had gotten my hands on it on DVD and it is one of my favorite musical movies I have ever witnessed. I love the story line and I love how the music stays with throughout the whole movie. With Christine and the Phantom I fell for their acting and I admired the way they had to sings some of the sings to me a lot of it was spot on. I did, however, fall for the phantom more. But, anyway, overall the film to me was magnificent and I can easily watch it over and over again. And when I have to just have it digitally I will definitely do that for sure.

Imagine a cake. The cake was made with the richest, rarest ingredients, including seventeen different types of biscuit, brandy-soaked cherries, shards of sugared ginger and nuggets of Belgian chocolate. Afterwards it was covered in icing and piping, sprinkled with edible gold leaf and decorated from top to bottom with pink roses made out of sugar and smiling cherubs made out of marzipan. On top of the cake there's a neoclassical "Temple of Love" made from spun sugar. Now translate the image to the world of movie-making. If you're thinking : "That sounds nice, I'd like a slice", then this is the movie for you.Other viewers, more mindful of the risks to human sanity, might want to make a detour. The movie contains moments of real charm and beauty, but these moments get lost in the mix. There is too much of everything - too much melodrama, too much spectacle, too much gilding, too much heaving bosoms and fainting maidens. There is even too much singing.The movie is further torpedoed by the inexplicable decision to include a Phantom who looks handsome, normal and yes, sexy. This is the equivalent of staging a "Richard III" with a male model protagonist who suffers from the very slightest of limps, as if recovering from a light strain. The Phantom is supposed to be so hideously disfigured that strong men run away in terror ; this Phantom could find work as a gardener, a dentist, a priest, a kindergarten teacher or a federal prosecutor. It's completely unclear why such a man should want to shun human society or lock himself up in a secret lair.Talking about lairs, this is one very luxurious lair, provided with all modern conveniences and embellished with flourishes such as waterproof and inexhaustible candelabras. It would take the fortune of a particularly rapacious third world dictator to erect such a place - but then, the movie does not particularly care for plausibility.A handsome and passionate young man living in an exclusive pad near the Opera - Christ, he sounds quite the catch...

As I prepare to see another live version of Phantom at the Smith Center here in Vegas, I thought I'd watch the DVD again ("Maybe it's not as bad as I remember"). Now I remember why I justifiably hate this incarnation. First the good things.. 1) Emmy Rossum as "Christine". As much as I love Sarah Brightman's portrayal of Christine and her bell-like voice (a requirement for the role), I actually prefer Emmy's "Christine" to Brightman's. Part of this is due to the fact that with cinema, you can take advantage of subtlety in facial expressions and Rossum performs those very well. She's is anything but a one-dimensional ingenue! Her voice is excellent, and her acting is stellar. 2) Supporting Cast. The Managers are far more interesting in this version than in the musical. They have fine "pipes" and play their characters well. The same for Miranda Richardson as Madame Giry and Minnie Driver as Carlotta. 3) More "true" to the original story. The mirrored room, labyrinth, and the Phantom's "lair" can be more fully fleshed out on screen than stage. As a film adaptation of the STORY, this is one of the very best, and worth it for that much. 4) Sets, Set Decoration, CGI, costuming. ALL of these are stupendous and exactly what a West End/Broadway-to-Screen spectacle SHOULD be! The opening scene's transition back in time is nearly worth every penny spent on the Blu-Ray. In fact, the entire beginning of the movie - up through "Little Lotti" is precisely what you want from a movie adaptation of a musical drama.Then comes "The Mirror" and the movie crashes quickly. GERARD BUTLER CAN'T SING to save his life. Sorry but it's true. Oh, he can screech, scream, growl, and under-hit his notes, but he can't sing! This is especially a problem when the character he's playing is supposed to be a MUSICAL VIRTUOSO!! He is a master of music, so when he sings, it should be perfection! Butler sings like someone who is afraid of the notes, hedging them, resorting to patter and yelling instead of belting. I would even have preferred a 61-year- old Michael Crawford to reprise the role. Which brings up the second biggest problem with Butler's casting - he looks too young! Sure, Butler was 35 when he was cast, but with his Hollywood looks, he comes across as early 20's... FAR too young to have become a master architect, designer, musician, and make-up professional! He seems to be a contemporary of Raul rather than an older master. As someone who loves the character in both the film and the book, Butler doesn't do EITHER version justice. He never comes across as a man confident due to his complete control over every situation. In fact (and this blame goes to Joel Schumacher more than Gerard Butler) the entire CHARACTER of the Phantom is a plastic one- dimensional OGRE! The nuance Michael Crawford brought to the role was incredible (and probably responsible for most of the musical's success.) On stage, he is a flawed, loving, though damaged and hurt man. In the movie, there is really no sympathetic side of him - from the moment he brings Christine through the mirror, he is portrayed as a scheming, manipulative, narcissistic stalker-type. The stage presentation, on the other hand, presented a much more complex character struggling with true love, compassion and admiration for Christine (NOT just a drive to possess and ???? her!) I recall an interview where Michael Crawford spoke of intentionally NOT touching Christine because to do so would introduce a "sleazy" and "base" aspect the Phantom would consider rude and intolerable. This Phantom, on the other hand has his hands all over Christine which makes him creepy. The one part that SHOULD be creepy (the scars below his mask) are SO disappointingly understated, it looks like he had a bad night on the town after beating up his hair-dresser. If the big screen allowed ANYTHING in terms of improving the stage production, it would be in giving a wonderfully vivid, grotesque face to the Phantom. I've seen more frightening visages on a Freddy Kruger doll! Unfortunately, in Phantom Andrew Lloyd Webber does what he seems to do best - ruins a perfectly crafted stage production in their transition to the big screen. He did the exact same thing with Evita (except his major problem there was emasculating Che and making him some kind of jilted ex-lover). In his movies, Webber often improves his female leads while sacrificing his male characters in search of "box office draw" - which is the only justification I can see in casting Gerard Butler. The result a beautiful, enchanting feast for the eyes - ruined by a Phantom that is neither true to the character we fell in love with, nor can he carry a solid note in a paper sack. Had someone with even the vocal qualities of Ewan McGregor been cast, my rating would probably have been up between a 7 and a 9 (depending on his performance). But a movie about the Phantom lives or dies by the Phantom himself, and with all the movie has going for it, nothing can save it from Butler's presence as The Phantom.